Jump to content

Talk:MSNBC/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

. MSNBC calls itself a news outlet ?,where is the coverage of the trump rally?,so much for equality....fake news!

Complaint by McCain Campaign

Actually, Blaxthos should be the one bringing this to talk before deleting article copy. I have no particular preference as to how the McCain campaign complaint is presented in the article and putting it in a window box probably wasn't the best way to do it. Just as long as it's in there. Claiming undue weight in this instance is absurd. A letter of complaint lodged by a presidential candidate's campaign staff is obviously relevant. The only folks exerting undue in this matter are Blaxthos and his fellow "let's make it as difficult as possible for right-wingers" cohorts. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the "Accusations of conservative bias" section of the article includes information about Alan Keyes's short-lived program on MSNBC. How long ago was that? And that information wouldn't be undue weight? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dealing only with the substance of your argument, and ignoring the personal attacks and ose: A single letter from a political candidate is not de facto evidence of systemic bias. Presenting it as such is both misleading and presents the candidate's opinion with too much weight. I would suggest looking for some academic sources, preferably peer-reviewed academic journals, and see if there are any that deal with the reporting by MSNBC. If there are multiple reliable sources that indicate bias (as there are for Fox News Channel), then it is appropriate to mention them in context in the MSNBC article. However, listing a complaint by a politician hardly qualifies as objective or suitable as a reliable source when dealing with this issue. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
An entire paragraph on the McCain campaign concern trolling that takes up a third of the subsection is undue weight. A passing mention of Keyes in a large paragraph is not undue weight. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article section, and I really shouldn't have to point this out, is on allegations of bias. It doesn't have to prove bias. It has to prove that allegations of bias have been made. Cut the peer review nonsense. What academic journal does Eddie Rendell write for? What peer reviewed sources are actually in any of this article? To add a just a bit more WP:OSE to the proceedings, I'm 58 and I was a public school teacher for 33 years. Do you really think that I don't know what's going on here? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your previous career is not relevant to this discussion. I think we can mention this, but the source is rather vague on what the meeting is actually for beyond 'concerns of non-partisanship'. It all sounds kind of ridiculous. NcSchu(Talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In all due respect NcSchu, you're missing the nub of the controversy. Whether or not The McCain camp and NBC news chieftains meet or resolve anything is not the issue. For the purpose of this article, the McCain camp has accused MSNBC of bias; to wit, "We are concerned that your (NBC's) News Division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race. It is the mere mention of this complaint in the Wikipedia MSNBC article that certain editors have been deleting. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, I agree, which is exactly why I wrote, 'I think we can mention this'. My issue was with how you added a lot of stuff that was entirely not included in the source... NcSchu(Talk) 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As NcSchu stated, it all sounds kind of ridiculous. Sorry to abandon the ship, but at this point it appears this is more agenda oriented than it is an encyclopedic concern. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dare I think that we may be reaching an accommodation here if not an agreement? How about something like this right after Ed Rendell's comments in the Obama bias subsection?

The Presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, Senator Obama's presumptive Republican opponent, seems to have picked up on Rendell's theme. In an August 17, 2008 letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis alleged that MSNBC had "abandon(ed) non-partisan coverage of the Presidential race." Badmintonhist (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I made that section for primary bias, and let me remind you, there's nothing in that statement that specifies what kind of bias they're talking about. It could be specific, it could be vague. NcSchu(Talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I used the word "seems," but, frankly, logically, at this point in the election process the only kind of bias that the McCain camp is concerned with is pro-Obama bias. They aren't going to be complaining about MSNBC's Olympic coverage's bias against synchronized swimming. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I have read people accusing MSNBC of being biased on those things. I'll spare you of the details :-)
The McCain statement seems to yours truly to be accusing the network of both anti-McCain and pro-Obama bias rather than just solely pro-Obama bias. The whole Cone-of-silence-gate event was not sponsored by Obama. I've yet to see Obama himself ever attack McCain about it, I've only seen heresy reports from Obama supporters.
Anyways, the allegation about McCain was made before more clearly:
"It's an organ of the Democratic National Committee," says Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist for John McCain's campaign. "It's a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain." -- The Washington Post The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and of course Olbermann, in particular, is virulently and vituperatively anti-McCain. In the zero sum game of Presidential elections, however, being pro one candidate is very closely related to being anti the other. Whether the emphasis is on the allegedly anti-McCain or the allegedly pro-Obama nature of MSNBC's news coverage, the McCain camp's basic complaint about MSNBC should at least be mentioned in article and I'd be perfectly amenable to you giving it another try. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but one politician complaining about a news network doesn't meet due weight. For an example of properly sourced, academically peer-reviewed allegations of bias, check out Fox News Channel. You'll have to present a little better sourcing than a politician, who obviously isn't objective regarding the subject matter. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems more like a complaint letter to NBC about the comments of Andrea Mitchel. The actual complaint or 'concern', as it's coined, about MSNBC/NBC isn't contained in the letter included with the source. NcSchu(Talk) 12:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to avoid your comment NcSchu, but first I have to welcome back our pal Blaxthos. I thought he had retired from the fray in disgust but I see he is back trying to shed light on the topic. Unfortunately he is still pushing a red herring. There are no peer reviewed sources in this article. That's not to say there couldn't be, but if he is really so concerned with the matter then he should be the one who introduces them. What we already have here are a bunch of non-peer reviewed complaints about bias most of which have not been deleted from the article. They show that complaints of bias have been made. They don't prove bias which, technically, not even a well conceived peer reviewed study can do. I simply want to give the McCain camp the same consideration that the Hillary camp has already been given. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I agree we should include a sentence or two in the liberal bias section. This quote is just as significant as pretty much the other dozen or so in the political bias section, as the rest are simply allegations via a secondary source (some, not even), as this one is. But again (and I feel like I'm repeating myself), we must keep to what's in the source. No 'it seems', which is a way of injecting your opinion. NcSchu(Talk) 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "I'm fine with that." Perhaps young Squicks, who is already doing barnstar-deserving work on this and other articles, should be given the honor of making the entry. I haven't looked lately, so maybe he already has. Cheers. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So, I think I added in a good little paragraph that covers both criticisms. I noticed, though, that the most recent one that this discussion's about is actually directed at NBC. There is a funny allusion to their other accusation in it, however. NcSchu(Talk) 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. I edited it a little bit to fix the ref and other minor things. The Squicks (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Passion and point of view" about what?

The subsection on alleged liberal bias begins by stating: "Senior vice president of NBC News Phil Griffen said in response to a question about MSNBC's "passion and point of view" that "it happened naturally." He stated that "there is a go for it" mentality anong their staff." I don't get it. Whose question? Passion about what? What point of view? A go for it mentality about what? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Jeopardy too, but we shouldn't be setting up a similar game here. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It serves as an intro, I really don't see what's wrong with it. It doesn't matter who asked it, it just serves to demonstrate MSNBC's official stance on it having a liberal bias. NcSchu(Talk) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
But why is it only okay to cite those two phrases? Why is it not okay to cite any other phrass/sentences/words from the article? The Squicks (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Did I ever say it wasn't? I don't understand what you mean. NcSchu(Talk) 02:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not you NcSchu. It's... It's... Let's just say it's somebody else. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

'Pimping' controversy

News coverage here: [1]. [2]. [3].

The controversial statement is here. Mrs. Clinton's response is here.

If the Don Imus controversy is worth mentioning here, than is this also worth mentioning? The Squicks (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In a word: No. This might be germane to David Shuster, but you can't take one commentators words and try to wedge it in as systemic bias. The Imus thing got a lot more press, and Don got fired, so likely that's a little bit more relevant... but again that's more about Don than MSNBC. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What do mean you can't take one commentators words and try to wedge it in as systemic bias? I never said that there was a political slant to this-- I compared it to the non-political Don Imus thing (Imus is a liberal Democrat, isn't he?).
Anyways, the essential thing is that Shuster controversy is more germane to this article than the Imus thing since Imus was only simulcast on MSNBC, he was not their employee specifically and broadcast his stuff on CBS Radio along with other groups, while Shuster is an MSNBC journalist who made his comment on MSNBC itself. The Squicks (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Shuster was acting as a temporary host of a program when he said the comment, he wasn't being a journalist on behalf of MSNBC like he does on Hardball often. It has nothing to do with the network. I don't think we need a whole section; maybe a mention in the Obama bias section as it's related to that, but it was certainly not as serious as the Imus controversy, which was much more reported about on the mainstream media. NcSchu(Talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, a slave database error. The Squicks (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that's its not anywhere near as serious, but my point is that it is more germane to MSNBC itself than the Imus thing. Shuster said it while guest hosting MSNBC's popular 'Tucker' program. Whereas Imus's program was just simocast on MSNBC among other media groups (CBS radio, etc.) The Squicks (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It's worth a brief mention in the Obama bias section but doesn't deserve it's own section. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the Imus stuff was given more weight than needed too and it can probably be shortened a lot now as time's gone on and it's probably had much less of a long-term significance, but it still got more widespread media coverage and Shuster was only temporarily suspended, not fired and taken off the air. It's apples and oranges, but like I said it probably should get a sentence. NcSchu(Talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I 2nd the idea of shortening/revising the Imus section. The Squicks (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters criticism of a criticism

Much as I admire the image of a young Mark Twain on your user page (though why the vulgar caption?), I can't let that sway my judgment. Yes, even the mere mention (perhaps especially the mere mention) of Media Matters' criticism of Howard Kurtz's criticism of MSNBC needs to go for the following reasons: (a) It gives MM "undue weight" in the article. MM's direct (albeit now rather dated) critique of MSNBC already occupies a full paragraph in the "Conservative bias" section of the article in question. (b) While I'm sure that many other individuals and organizations have also criticized the criticisms of MSNBC found in the article, those other "criticisms of criticisms", however cogent, aren't found in the article for good reason. They would make it too long and convoluted. Again giving MM, certainly no disinterested observer of the media, special dispensation to criticize the critic constitutes "undue weight," just as would including oh, say a Media Research Council's criticism of MM's "Conservative bias" comments. (c) As it now stands the sentence announcing MM's criticism of Kurtz stands out like a sore thumb (actually more so). It's abrupt and gratuitous. We could,of course, provide a very full exposition of MM's criticism of Kurtz's criticism but this would add even more to the problem of "undue weight" and, dare I say, editorial bias. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are going so overboard with these criticism sections anyway, so I really would like to limit the amount of back-and-forths criticisms. As such I don't see why we must include rebuttals by everyone and every single organization. Also, I think we should all sit back and take a break for several days from editing and discussing the section and revisit it at a later time. It seems obvious there are parties involved that want to include every possible criticism ever made against MSNBC and those that want to remove every possible criticism; we must come to some kind of equilibrium. NcSchu(Talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we are going so overboard with these criticism sections anyway. Please see CNN controversies and Fox News Channel controversies. MSNBC is getting way different treatment. Why? The Squicks (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
[That's not to say that I support forking things off of this page-- I don't. I'm just wondering about the double-standard.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Squicks (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As for the point that Badmintonhist brought up, I don't really have any feelings one way or the other. Howard Kurtz is one of Media Matters' most devoted ideological enemies, in their eyes. They dislike him for him, so to speak, and not particularly for this exact article. Plus, MM has plenty of weight already. At the same time, I'd like to see the article acknowledge the fact that Kurtz's reporting is controversial. (Who isn't, in the internet age?) *Shrugs*
While I'm glad that NcShu wants to ensure cooler heads and more balanced editing in his/her call for a break, I don't really think it's a good idea. There's nothing wrong, IMHO, with active back-and-forth editing between two firm sides. The problem comes in when one or both sides refuses to compromise or breaks civility or things like that. The Squicks (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I never said I liked those two articles either; I think having entire articles composed of 'controversies' are a waste of time and have no encyclopedic value and therefore am strictly against them. My point here is that I'm really hoping to prevent such an article from being created for MSNBC. I definitely appreciate the debate rather than having a revert war. But to somehow give credence to the opinions of everyone that exists in regards to such biases is just absurd. I would much prefer to reduce the amount of quoting in the section and instead have a format such as 'x, y and z have all had significant criticisms of the channel...' instead of basically listing who said what and at what time. I don't think having the opinions of obviously biased watchdog groups to be helpful either as it's probably very obvious what they'll think. A lot of this section is based on the opinions of them as if they are reliable sources, when they all have their own clear agendas. NcSchu(Talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in briefly here folks. Airing Media Matters' criticisms of Howard Kurtz in an article about MSNBC is an example of what the sagacious Wikipedian cognoscenti call "coatrack(ism)", WP:Coatrack; i.e. using an article on one topic as an instrument (coatrack) to pursue another. MM's problems with Kurtz can be dealt with in the article on MM, or in the article on Kurtz, or in both. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, I think, a lot of the bulk from these sections can be removed since a lot of it is criticism of one person on the network that has been synthesized with other comments to be a criticism of the entire network. NcSchu(Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with you that we as editiors should try our hardest not to do that. But it's not us who's making that synthesis, it's Media Matters itself. They claim more or less that "Tucker, Scarborough, Keyes, and others are conservatives, they are on MSBC, therefore-- MSNBC is a conservative propaganda outlet." The MRC does a similar thing. The Squicks (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
There are also a lot of these: "Hillary Clinton's campaign chairperson, Terry McAuliffe, has said that correspondent Chris Matthews has been 'in the tank' for Obama 'from Day One' and has labeled him 'the Obama campaign chair.'". This is one example of quite a few of quotes being changed from criticizing one person to an entire network. As I state above, I don't think we should use the Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as sources. These organizations all have spelled out agendas that give their complaints little or no significance. NcSchu(Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As I state above, I don't think we should use the Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as sources. I more or less agree with you, but the clear consensus of Wikipedia editors seems to be to treat them as sources. This article is not too bad IMHO since it at least correctly identifys them as sources whereas most articles, such as the article for the invasion of Iraq, state quotes/ideas from them without attribution. The Squicks (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As for your main point, again, it's not us who's doing the synthesis. It's The Washington Post that's doing it. What they're doing may be (Naturally, good people can disagreee on this) pure quote mining yellow journalism, but that is what they said. The Squicks (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well we either use all of them or none of them. WP:WEIGHT doesn't refer to sources; sources can be used any number of times. And no, that quote has nothing to do with the Washington Post. The Washington Post just happens to be where the McAuliffe quote was obtained from. The context or subject of the article is irrelevant to the quote that is only talking about one fraction of the people that 'represent' MSNBC. NcSchu(Talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin introduction

I think that this story should be listed under "Liberal Bias":

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73968


I have placed this story twice and it has been deleted twice. I will not place it there again without consensus. This is why it should be placed there:

Multiple sources: World Net Daily. Fox News MSNBC itself.


This is an example of bias because MSNBC used a breaking news story about Palin to make a snide comment about McCain. This was clearly not a case of an MSNBC pundit making a clever remark. This was an extremely unprofessional attack on the McCain ticket under the guise of "Breaking News".

O'Reilly discussed it on his show. I don't see how the cases can be made that this is not liberal bias or how it is not noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.41 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable secondary references for Fox News and/or MSNBC reporting on the incident/accident? Regardless, we don't need to include every single event that happens that might somehow indirectly relate to a bias that the network has against or for a certain person. I've not heard nor read anything about this and I doubt it will exist in a few weeks as an outstanding example of bias. NcSchu(Talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Here is one from Breitbart TV which basically just took it from Fox News. http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=164143

I guess it's hard to understand what you're looking for as far as a source. You can clearly see that the incident happened and that conservatives are upset about it. Just google "MSNBC Palin Houses" and you'll come up with a lot of relevant hits from Sean Hannity to bloggers to all types of commentary. 75.83.231.41 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Fusek

It doesn't matter that it happened. The basis of Wikipedia is not truth it is reliability (see WP:RELIABLE for more details, or at least see the summary: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."). Blogs are not reliable sources and neither are the two that you have provided. When I did the Google search all I saw were conservative blogs and pundits, nothing from a mainstream media source like a newspaper. If Fox News did a news report on it, then it could be sourced, but Fox News has not, Bill O'Reilly has, and that's not the same thing. The opinion of a commentator on a news channel is not the same as a news report from a news channel. Regardless if a reliable source is found, it's still unnecessary to include it as it's not as clear-cut as the other items in the section and not as significant or important; it's a criticism of the wording of the banner for a few minutes of an MSNBC broadcast, which I don't consider to be of the same caliber or importance as what's there already (which as you can see is causing enough debate as it is). NcSchu(Talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to wait and see how this plays out. It's not clear yet what media coverage this will recieve. Wikipedia is not a repository for current news. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally hold a very negative view of [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73968 Worldnetdaily]. So, I still advocate waiting. The Squicks (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosenburg's criticism

  1. ^ Is Olbermann's snide act on MSNBC the future of TV news?. Los Angeles Times. Published June 7, 2008. Accessed August 28, 2008.

IMO, this is more notable and more encyclopediac than either Media Matters' blog or the MRC's blog. Rosenberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning writer who does not have a particular ideological ax to grind, and his article was not posted online-- but in The Los Angeles Times. The Squicks (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you actively search for criticisms directly or indirectly related to the network? Just wondering. I mean, sure it's maybe better than other sources, but it's still an opinion piece regardless of the author's stats, shall we say (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact.") and like I've been saying in the numerous sections we have, how many people's opinions must we include? But to the subject matter, those three shows are what percent of MSNBC's programming? I think these entire sections are actually just criticisms on Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews; no one else seems to be the subject of criticism, so how does that exactly make sense given all the commentators and journalist the network has? NcSchu(Talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But to the subject matter, those three shows are what percent of MSNBC's programming? Olbermann runs MSNBC. These programs are their most highest rated programs. Those three people are their network stars. They are the people in the ads for MSNBC. Given that Keith Olbermann "runs the network", it would make sense to mention criticism of him-- after all, don't we bring up Rupert Murdock in Wikipedia's long bloated tirades against Fox News?
You're worried about synthesis, and I share your concern. But, again, it's not us that's making that synthesis. It's a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist that's making that synthesis.
As a side note, why on earth did you take out Chris Matthews statement that MSNBC is/was biased in favor of Obama? I'm asking you honestly, if Chris Wallace had publicly said that Fox News was/is biased in favor of McCain-- would anyone here hesitate to put that on their Wikipedia pages? The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I actually didn't realize I removed both sentences on the Chris Matthews thing until you mentioned it, so I'll add that back in; I only meant to remove the statement regarding him being 'in the tank' for Obama and not the one about him making the 'not official' comment. In regards to WP:Synthesis, you demonstrated it in your response by saying that because one source says Keith Olbermann 'runs MSNBC' that we should include other statements from other sources that say his biases are tilted a certain way and ergo so are MSNBC's. The fact is, there's a difference between Rupert Murdoch and Keith Olbermann in their positions, a huge difference. I left in some about Keith Olbermann since he has received a bulk of the criticism and clearly then it would make sense to give weight to that. NcSchu(Talk) 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perception of Liberal Bias confirmed by MSNBC,

Percieved Liberal Bias confirmed by the network. I suspect some aspect of this will be incorporated, so it is probably best to discuss first. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please, please pay attention to current discussions, namely this one? We have so many current topics on this it's just plain aggravating when another one crops up to dilute the discussion. NcSchu(Talk) 12:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, given the new developments regarding this issue and the confirmation of Liberal Bias or at least the perception of Liberal bias where the two main figures of MSNBC have been removed from anchoring the election covereage because of their bias bring forth new discussion that doesn't neccessarily flow well with the old discussions (which I considered adding to). Furthermore, new topics are added to the bottom. Arzel (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Look at the talk page history, please; discussions have been taking place in the aforementioned section as recently as yesterday and they're very relevant to the NYT article. We'll keep this in mind when making the changes. NcSchu(Talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious about the question of addition/deletion of the most current statement on this page. The following statement is currently published on the Fox News Wikipedia entry: "'Critics and some observers of the channel say that Fox News Channel promotes conservative political positions. Fox News Channel and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting." This statement is observed by the masses, and met by little opposition, so it is reasonable to say it is true. Now, this is what was removed from MSNBC's Wikipedia entry: "Critics and some observers of the channel say that MSNBC promotes liberal political positions. MSNBC and others disagree with allegations of bias in the channel's reporting." - Both accurate entries, and obviously almost identical. These entries are both written in such a way to show both viewpoints, and objectivity at it's best. It is up to the reader to interpret, nothing is implied. I think we are under some notion that "liberal" is a bad word or something. It is interesting how one page is held to one standard of "notability" while another of equal content, is held to another. In both statements, "liberal" or "Conservative" is not used in such a context that would imply a negative light on either positions. It's pretty simple, I believe. 68.105.106.42 (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiport (talk • contribs)
Sigh...can you look here, please? That's all I'm going to say. NcSchu(Talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh? Quite dramatic, regardless; this is the correct section to discuss topics relating to the article. If it bothers you that conversations may bleed over and run concurrently, I would ask that you refrain from feeling the need to comment. Thanks!Wikiport (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a case of bleeding over, it's a case of editors ignoring current discussions that have already 'been there and done that'. This isn't moving the situation forwards, it's going backwards. NcSchu(Talk) 12:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please revert back to my last comment, thanks again! Wikiport (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that a decision regarding a statement of MSNBC's bias is being decided/has been decided upon in the section you are apparently choosing to ignore. NcSchu(Talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
He or she is not ignoring anything, it's just that the earlier section left some issues unresolved. In any rate, why on earth are we talking here? Let's comment in the earlier section. The Squicks (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the above comment is the most sensible idea. NcSchu, not to be directive here, but please understand "Liberal Bias" is a pretty relative term that may contain a large spectrum of topics. I think it's pretty much a dead issue here as we are discussing it. I agree with "The Squicks" as it should be moved to the earlier section. Thanks NcSchu for your continued "last word" editorial! Wikiport (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying the whole time...NcSchu(Talk) 11:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of political bias

I realize this issue may have been discussed in other sections, however it is clear to see that they are quickly becoming a bit disorganized. This section provides no real insight as it cancels each other out without providing any sources. This same statement could be said about any of the other news channels. It is similar to saying, "Some people agree with him, but others don't agree with him.." What's the point of adding this? Wikiport (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I deleted the comments made with ideologically hard-line sources. That means that only the 'Liberal' and 'Obama' sections are left. The 'Liberal' one could use more editing to make the comments about Olbermann more clear. As for the partisan allegations, I'm still inclined to leave that in. But I'd like to hear more opinions on that. The Squicks (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations from the campaigns, I really don't see how they're any more relevant than the ones we've just removed. Political campaign complaints are even more predictable than ones from Media Matters et al. They're going to find any negative coverage about them and scream political bias. I think if we want this section to be an encyclopedic, informative section on the bias of the network then we should only include 'evidence and academic analysis' from organizations that are at least in principle supposed to be neutral (ie. mainstream newspapers and academic analyses—not tabloids; not op/eds; not John Doe from Nowheretown, USA; etc.). NcSchu(Talk) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Intro

It seems there is some dispute about the intro of this article. A user inserted a statement regarding MSNBC's political bias in the introduction of this article. My guess is that it is ONLY being done to counter the same exact intro from the FOX News page. I know some liberals on here would like to think their beloved MSNBC is not a liberal station, but that simply is not true...it is. Olbermann and Matthews were recently displaced from their jobs for being too liberal. They are constantly thwarting attacks about their one-sided favoritism of Obama. If there is a mention of conservative bias on FOX News's intro, then there should be mention in the intro of MSNBC...MSNBC is to Liberals what FOX News is to Republicans. I also see another comment as to "FOX's bias is more 'severe' than MSNBC's bias" that is just not true. Both stations have taken a lot of heat for their bias, and the statement is just completely subjective and DOES NOT justify why it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro of this article. I will keep re-inserting it...as long as that same statement is in the FOX news intro. Its not fair to hound one station while letting another slide when they are both facing similar criticisms. Ocexpo (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a comment with respect to Fox's bias being more 'severe' than MSNBC. From what I understand, there is documentation from reliable sources alleging bias in Fox News Channel reporting to the effect where it became a notable controversy that was worth mentioning in that article's lead. In the case of MSNBC, I'm not seeing a wealth of documentation to that effect. It's not fair to Chuck Todd, Norah O'Donnell, Andrea Mitchell, etc., to make a sweeping statement alleging the entire network of bias because Olbermann and Matthews were recently pulled from the anchor desk, or because Olbermann's whiny left-sympathetic commentary dominates the 7 o'clock hour. Switzpaw (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You won't find as much documentation of it because MSNBC is such a small network compared to FOX. MSNBC's competitor is Headline News...that is why the documentation is less apparent. Nevertheless, I can say the same about FOX News....its not fair that Bill Oreilly messes it up for all the other fair and balanced people at FOX, but nonetheless the company has still been accused of bias. MSNBC is very bias...it doesn't take much to see that. The morning McCain announced his VP, the caption at the bottom read "How many houses does Palin bring to the ticket?"...and that was in the morning, not in the evening hours when Matthews and Olbermann spew their leftist garbage. Its all day on that network, whether it be their frequent contributor Jesse Jackson, or the fact that they dont have one show that has a conservative view, but 9 that have a liberal view...I think its fair to conclude that there is a liberal bias. Nonetheless, my objective was to keep this fair and it seems as if the statement about bias has been removed from the FOX news page, so I no longer desire it to be on the MSNBC page. If it shall return to the FOX page after talks, I will push for it on this page as well in the intro. It is not for us to decide whether "FOX is more bias than MSNBC"...but if we report the bias of one station, then it is only fitting that we also report the bias of its competitor regardless. Ocexpo (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I reverted it because there's a current discussion that deals with how to word a statement on this page. Things done on the Fox News Channel article have zero impact on things done here, and I would ask you don't ignore discussions regarding this current issue. NcSchu(Talk) 13:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ocexpo, it doesn't matter what you conclude, and the "if it's there it has to be here" logic follows no Wiki policy (and has no validity). Let's stick to published, academic, peer-reviewed studies instead of what you personally believe (see WP:OR and WP:RS). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the intro of both pages need tailoring. Ocexpo, there are plenty of sources on both side of the argument which I believe validates your claims and motivations for editing. I believe the most productive way to go about it is to organize and come to a consensus regarding the issue. Some "editors" will claim that there are more sources out there that speak to the bias of FNC, which is just a stretch to somehow prove their opinion, and protect the article as it stands. I welcome your contributions. Wikiport (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion of how to handle and write a sentence in the lead with respect to allegations of MSNBC's bias is in the Liberal_Bias section of this talk page. It is important that editors read and participate in that discussion in a manner that will result an edit grounded in consensus. Switzpaw (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's quite interesting that the intro for both MSNBC and FNC are in question. There is a RFC in progress on the FNC talk page, I'm hoping that will help hash out some issues and address some shortcomings of the "old" consensus. Wikiport (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is appropriate to include liberal bias in the intro as supported by reliable references. Shouldnt matter whether the bias is more or less than FOX news channel. Docku:“what up?” 20:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


I'm putting the following comment on both the Fox News and MSNBC talk pages. I recommend that the following statements, or something quite similar, be placed in the leads of the two articles:

Critics and some observers of the network say that Fox News Channel has promoted conservative and pro-Republican political positions since its founding.
Critics and some observers of the network say that MSNBC has become increasingly liberal and anti-Republican, particularly in its prime time lineup, during President George W. Bush's second term in office.

Obviously, the last few words of the second statement will have to be modified shortly. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to your proposed sentence for the MSNBC lead. Switzpaw (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am in favor of most of the language, but I think that the anti/pro-Republican should be altered to conservative. My reasoning is primary voting issues are motivating traditional party lines to blur a bit. Plus, anti-Republican seems a bit harsh for an MSNBC intro, albeit I maintain either intro should speak of no bias since there are established sections within both respective articles. Thanks Wikiport (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It kind of makes me wonder if it is a coordinated effort by some agenda seekers to somehow tie the FOX news channel and MSNBC articles and achieve (force) their goals. Though I support adding liberal bias to the lead sentence, I am afraid that supporting this kind of tie-two-articles-and-seek-agenda attitude will set wrong (or right) precedents. Docku:“what up?” 23:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right. But on the other hand there are probably readers of the pages, unaware of the Wikipedia editing process, who see the difference as hypocritical. Readers of the page may have no idea that there is no formal oversight over a category of articles, and what they're seeing on each individual page is just how it happened with respect to the history of that particular page. From the point of view of the editor, considering how facts on this page are weighted by comparing it against the Fox News article *is* a bad precedent, because there is no official coordination with what's happening there and what's happening here. Switzpaw (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Docku as well. Let's find an intro here. What happens on FNC is irrelevant to this discussion. To that end I suggest the anti-Republican language be removed as we have to follow what the sources say. But I'd otherwise support the sentence. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking about that. I am also not sure if the Bush's second term is necsessary. Can we not simply write Critics and some observers of the network say that MSNBC has become increasingly liberal particularly in its prime time lineup. Docku:“what up?” 23:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If one insists on balancing the sentence for WP:NPOV reasons, We could consider adding a sentence about Morning Joe which runs for 3 hours in the morning and pretty much the same amount of time as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow combined. Guess Olbermann comes again later on though. Docku:“what up?” 23:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tit for tat" wasn't the only reason that I put the two statements together in both talk sections. I also wanted to highlight the difference in their histories of bias. While Fox News was largely "born" as a conservative enterprise, MSNBC has been all over the lot in its history. It has only been in the last few years (and more than just coincidentally in light of an unpopular presidential term, I think) that it has become flagrantly liberal (a veritable closed shop) in its prime time lineup. That's why I think some specific time reference as to its liberal odyssey should be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, can anyone here provide any published, peer-reviewed, academic sources that support any of these positions? Editorial opinions of other media organizations fail WP:RS in this context, likewise your opinions and conclusions fail WP:OR and WP:SYN. If you want to go trying to tie the two articles together, you're going to have to also sign on to the standards enforced there as well. I'm not saying sources don't exist, but if we're building a quality article here then we need to start with reliable sources, and then write an article that reflects what they say. In no circumstance should editors get the cart before the horse by goin out hunting sources that support an already-formed position. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start referring to Blaxthos as "Peer-Review". He always calls for peer-reviewed sources... when he thinks that it suits his purposes, that is. Unfortunately for him, he has mis-analyzed the situation...again. The statements under consideration don't purport to "prove" bias. They purport to indicate that claims of bias have been made. There are plenty of reliable sources for that. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you read WP:RS?

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. --WP:RS (emphasis added)

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement that a conclusion come from a peer-reviewed, academic source in order for us to report it as a notable controversy. The NYT article reporting on the removal of Olbermann and Matthews from the anchor desk, accompanying by comment from Griffin on the issue, brought forth conclusions that critics and observers of the channel perceived liberal bias in the prime time lineup. For us to paraphrase that conclusion is not original research. Switzpaw (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If Matthews and Olbermann were pulled out of anchoring for their blithering liberal views, shouldnt it mean that the news organisation is not interested in promoting liberal ideas (atleast during anchoring at election nights)? Docku:“what up?” 01:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicely stated, Switzpaw. Did I say that I was considering you for the coveted Barnstar award? As for the point made by Docku, which is kind of inside baseball (an American expression), the fact that they even considered Olbermann (who regularly insults Republicans in the most vituperative ways allowed on television) for an "anchor" says an awful lot about their liberal drift. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced of your answer. Something missing. On the other hand, the article already has a section titled Liberal bias, therefore the issue should just be whether to include that in the lead (assuming reliability of the sources used for the section has already been established). Docku:“what up?” 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Doc. Practically speaking, the fact that MSNBC removed OLbermann (and Matthews) from their "anchor" positions doesn't really diminish their ability to air their views. Both still have their regularly scheduled shows on MSNBC. Neither will miss much, if any, air time because both will probably be commentators on the same kind of shows that they would have been "anchoring." In fact, as commentators they will be freer to be more opinionated than they would be if they were still, officially, anchors. I'll answer your question about "inside baseball" on your talk page in a little while. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's interesting to see the viewpoints here versus on FNC. I know, I know, different articles. One says a controversy section is enough here, and no bias should be mentioned in the intro, while stating a completely different opinion next door. Amazing! We aren't so different after all. Given the changes MSNBC has made recently, adhering to a consensus that outdates those changes is silly. Quoting policy to continue that position is a bit one-sided I think. I believe it should be all or nothing, either we keep controversy in the CONTROVERSY section, or we allow it to pepper the entire article. Either way, it should be fair so a reader with no prior knowledge (if one exists) is able to form their own opinions without editors force-feeding it to them. A genuine thanks to all. Wikiport (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope Wikiport will stop comparing the two articles for forcing his point. The two channels and articles are different and not comparable and they should be dealt with differently. Docku:“what up?” 11:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. These are both cable tv news networks that have been criticized by multiple sources for bias. I think wikipedia should be somewhat consistent across different articles. That is why we have the manual of style, although this issue is clearly not covered by that. Why do you say they are not comparable? I think many people flip from one channel to another and "compare" them. --rogerd (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I do acknowledge the bias of both news organisations, while the degree of bias is debatable. I just find the argument "because FOX news criticism for conservative bias is included in the lead, so should be the liberal bias of MSNBC" quite unprofessional and immature. Docku:“what up?” 14:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget "completely devoid of a policy to support that sort of argument". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I support this version-- Critics and some observers of the network say that MSNBC has become increasingly liberal particularly in its prime time lineup -- for inclusion in the lead. I think if the NYT is stating it, it is sufficiently reliable. Also since there is a liberal bias section in the article, per WP:LEAD, the intro should summarize what we'd be reading in the body of the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That basically works for me. The only thing is that it would be rather abrupt since nothing else in the lead currently says anything about the substance of MSNBC programming. Perhaps a short lead-in such as Amid many changes in its programming over the years critics and some observers... etc. By the way I like the username -- Ramsquire. It has a nice, solid English landowner feel to it. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I support Ramsquire's version; references for verification should exist in the liberal bias section. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That version or one close to it, seems to have received the most widespread support both here and in the discussion at the top of the page. Therefore, I am adding it to the article. To Badmintonhist-- there is no deadline, if it needs further tweaking, we can still discuss it, provided this version isn't changed to substantially. But for now, I'm just going to start the process by adding the version that seems to have the most support. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with it. But I don't know why the [who?] and [citation needed] tags were added; the statement is meant as an introduction/summary to the criticism section, and the templates can be answered using that section as well. NcSchu(Talk) 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Would like an uninvolved editor's opinion on it. I don't want to accuse the editor who added them of bad faith, but he is currently involved in a debate regarding the ordering of words in the lead sentence of a related article. Switzpaw (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:WEASEL for a proper explanation of why phrases like "some observers say". It explains why these phrases are bad for the encyclopedia, and it gives advice on how to fix them. Warren -talk- 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We could point to some observers such as Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC, who said "The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming" but that would be elevating the weight of one observer. The articles are describing a general trend among critics and observers, so I don't think it's necessary. WP:WEASEL is really intended to prevent a type of non-neutral point of view paraphrasing where a minority opinion is made to seem more important through the use of "weasel" language. Here we are summarizing facts from articles that are not focusing on particular critics. Switzpaw (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read WP:WEASEL plenty of times, but I just meant that the 'some' refers to the ones that are listed in the criticisms section. It wouldn't be difficult to attach the sources to the above, but if we start listing the people that have said that then it'll get out of control. In any case, you might want to stick the same templates in Fox News Channel if you see a problem with it. NcSchu(Talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we acquiesced to inserting a statement on the presence of a similar statement in the lead of Fox News Channel, we should also adopt the reasoning well-defined by consensus from four RFC's: In a lead, selecting one (or more than one) source elevates it to a level of undue weight, prohibited by our neutral point of view. In the introduction, the statements made need not be referenced directly as long as the claims made are verifiable via reliable sources within the article. See Talk:Fox News Channel/FAQ. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read WP:LEADCITE (but I admit that I have not read the FNC archives to determine how the consensus that you speak of came about). WP:LEADCITE states the following:Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. I'd be okay with leaving the citations there. Since this controversy is relatively recent (over the past year AFAIK), it may be convenient for the reader to have them there. Though I'll defer to more experienced editors on this. Switzpaw (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos, three things.
1) There is no "acquiescence" involved with noting criticism in the lead; the fact is that the article covers criticism at some length, therefore the lead should as well.
2) WP:V is very clear in stating that any unsourced material that is challenged, should be attributable to reliable, published sources using inline citations. That's the policy. WP:LEAD, important as it is as a style guideline for our articles, cannot override the demands of the Verifiability policy.
3) WP:NPOV's undue weight qualification doesn't excuse us the responsibility of providing any sources at all when a large variety of sources of varying reliability and authority are available. To this end, the WP:ASF section of NPOV states that, "This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
I don't think that saying "The New York Times" holds this opinion is a good answer, either; it needs to be more explicit than that. Look at what was done with Countdown with Keith Olbermann for example -- a specific person was chosen as a representative of a fairly popular negative view of the show, and that specific person is a long-time television critic. The cool thing about identifying and quoting particular critics, instead of engaging in vague generalizations, is that Wikipedia becomes more trustworthy -- instead of it sounding like Wikipedia's editors are trying to push their own views through weasel-wording and peacock terms, we're doing what we should be doing, which is citing sources, being neutral, and not engaging in original research.
It's a lot harder this way (and I understand it is especially difficult if you actively like or dislike a subject), but it's the best way forward for the encyclopedia, and is in fact the only way that falls in line with policies and expectations. Please support this approach. Thanks. Warren -talk- 21:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Warren, it is my understanding and belief that:
  1. WP:LEAD - the lead is a summary of the article.
  2. WP:V - the details of the summary are verifiable in the section of the article that contains that portion of said summary.
  3. WP:UNDUE - elevating a few critics in the summary section gives them undue weight.
  4. WP:LEADCITE - specifically recognizes exceptions; each situation is different and should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
This was the consensus of this very wording at Talk:Fox News Channel; since a major argument for including the statement here was because of its existence there, it's fair to say that we should consider the same reasoning when applying it here. No one is calling for "excusing the responsibility of providing any sources at all" -- the sources are available in the article content. The concerns embodied by the policy WP:UNDUE trump the WP:WEASEL guideline, which I remember barely passing muster during the guideline debate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll AGF here by assuming this dispute between Warren and Blaxthos is not being staged for my benefit. It seems to me that there is a fairly simple solution to the issue. Be general in tone but specific in content, to wit: Critics and some observers of the network, such as the New York Times' Joel Steinberg and the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, say that MSNBC has become increasingly politically liberal, particularly in its prime time lineup. This isn't so much elevating their opinion to undue weight as it simply using them as relatively "respectable" representatives of a fairly widespread view. Though I'm not concerned with it very much, it seems to me that the Fox News intro could be handled in a similar fashion, perhaps with a couple of "critics and observers" or even a peer-reviewed study being cited. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The longstanding consensus, which has now been affirmed by four RFC's, is outlined above; I'd rather not have to go through another one. Your reply doesn't cite any policy, guideline, or example -- "nuhuh" isn't a valid argument, and thus far no one has responded to those points directly at all. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I did cite a Wikipedia guideline, Blax. I cited WP:UNDUE (I just didn't provide a link to it) in suggesting that naming Steinberg and Kurtz in the lead didn't violate anything that I can see in it. But I must say that I'm confused here because the last time I checked Warren's edit naming the New York Times and the Washington Post in the lead was still standing. That means that the article lead does not presently reflect the RFC.
I think Warren has a good point when he suggests that saying that the New York Times (or the Washington Post, I assume) holds this opinion is a bit broad; that the credit should be more "explicit" (specific?). Folks like Steinberg and Kurtz have a kind of in-between status. They are not reporters but they are not columnists or editorial writers either. They are "writers" for their respective papers. Does what they say carry the imprimatur of the whole organization? Badmintonhist (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to revive an old discussion if this has been settled, but let's please remember that most importantly the lead is a summary of the article. Highlighting those people may be appropriate in the article section, but it really goes against the summary style that the lede should have. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In no case should the wording of the lead include specific critics (per WP:UNDUE), though the community could form a consensus that citations should exist in the lead. However, this becomes a sticky issue -- which citations are selected? What criteria are used to decide? Why is subject X included while subject Y not? In other discussions where this specific issue was addressed, the community repeatedly decided that since the lead is a summary, and since the claims are verifiable in the article itself, the best course of action has been to leave the citations to the meat of the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the most recent RFC at the Talk: Fox News Channel affirmed anything. The only consensus was the fact that a consensus could not be reached. There was no consensus reached regarding the lead what-so-ever. The decision to "keep" was based on default, not upon a community decision. There was an argument regarding how to word the result! Ungh! Wikiport (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of participants agreed with previous consensus. Couple that with the other three RFC's going back almost three years that all had the same result, and that's a very strong consensus. No policy or guideline was presented in that RFC by anyone disagreeing with consensus, and this is not a vote -- your argument was as utterly unconvincing there as it is here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As is yours when using a manufactured consensus. I'm not sure why it seems some editors are scared to see change here, everything is a quite unproductive back and forth. I'm curious about the perception and interpretation of the polices here at Wiki. Wikiport (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Back with the personal attacks and lies so soon after being blocked for such, and being a candidate for an indefinite ban from Wikipedia? I'd suggest treading very lightly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Goodness, Blax, have you looked at your comments? I'm not sure how I'm "personally attacking" anyone, haha. If you feel wronged, accept my deepest heartfelt apology. You definitely add spice to the world of Wikipedia..! Now, back to the talk page...Wikiport (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read WP:NPA if you're unclear of how "editors are scared to see change here" is a personal attack. Likewise, the fact that your supposition was rebuked by the community doesn't a "manufactured consensus" make; nor does the fact that you refuse to accept consensus make it any less valid. Consensus was clear there (hence the quick closure of the RFC), and the points agreed upon by the community are exactly on point with the situation here. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is moot at this point. Move along please. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
And again, not interested in a back and forth. Feel free to visit my talk page should you have additional comments that do not pertain to MSNBC. Thanks again! Wikiport (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad we both understand that it's resolved.  :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to me to be a clear majority opinion in favor of keeping the sentence. The only person that I can see opposed to it is Blaxtos, who bases his arguement on his idea that The New York Times and The Washington Post are not RS's. The Squicks (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What are we arguing about now? The lead reads fine as it is right now. Switzpaw (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it be better to be more specific in the sentence? Instead of saying "Some critics say" or something like that, it could say "The New York Times and The Washington Post have reported" or something like that. The Squicks (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
If that sentence was based on articles by one or two critics discovered by Wikipedia editors, then yes, we should say, for example, Howard Kurtz said MSNBC is tilting left. However, in the case of the Times article MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat, the NYT isn't the critic. They were reporting that "Critics have said MSNBC is tilting left," and we are trusting the NYT, as a reliable source, is reporting that as a fact. Does this distinction make sense? I know that's not the best explanation. Switzpaw (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You are correct about the Anchor Seat article. But this article that we cite does say explicitly, in the words of the paper's reporter himself, that there is a bias. The Squicks (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MSNBC/Archive_2&oldid=1248848797"